Democrats Propose Increased Tax Progressivity
We are about to find out how the public really feels about soaking the rich and spreading it out thin. Senior House Democrat Chris Van Hollen just proposed huge changes in the tax code.
The centerpiece of the proposal, set to be unveiled Monday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), is a “paycheck bonus credit” that would shave $2,000 a year off the tax bills of couples earning less than $200,000. Other provisions would nearly triple the tax credit for child care and reward people who save at least $500 a year.
The windfall — about $1.2 trillion over a decade — would come directly from the pockets of Wall Street “high rollers” through a new fee on financial transactions, and from the top 1 percent of earners, who would lose billions of dollars in lucrative tax breaks.
The proposal is complicated, read the whole article.
I read the alleged news article by Lori Montgomery (yes that Lori Montgomery) and Paul Kane as an endorsement (but of course I like the proposal so much that I would consider a straight description an endorsement).
Needless to say the proposal won’t pass — it opens the 2016 campaign. Nancy Pelosi is definitely on board (no surprise) so it is the official position at least of House Democrats.
For 2 decades polls have suggested large majorities of US adults support increased tax progressivity. Also Clinton and Obama were elected after promising a combination of higher taxes on the rich and middle class tax cuts. But it still remains to be seen how the public and commentators will react to the proposal and the inevetible Republican claim that it is growth destroying class warfare.
Sounds good to me. Why should hard working wage earners pay a higher tax rate on their earned income than some fat cat sitting on his ass collecting dividends and capital gains?
Needlessly complicated. Simply raise the exemption level.
How will raising the exemption level pay for it? I thought that was the purpose of a new fee on financial transactions, and the ending of billions of dollars in tax breaks.
Why did it take 6 years to reach this level? It could have been done years ago, but as Waldmann says: “Game on!” Playing politics is more important than actually doing something meaningful when given the opportunity.
I have to say I don’t have much sympathy for “couples earning 200 thousand dollars a year” crying for a tax cut.
It is true that “the rich” need to pay more taxes until “the deficit” is no longer a political problem. But greed among the the almost rich is no different than greed among the obscenely rich.
Even the “truly poor” can afford an ultimate 2% increase in the “tax” that provides them with the security that they desperately need and won’t get from “the rich” or even the “near rich” whose interest in justice and fair play stops when they are asked to pay for it.
[for those who don’t know, the “tax” on the truly poor is called Social Security and it’s not really a tax but a way for them to save their own money safe from markets and inflation, and also to insure themselves against an entire lifetime of such poverty they could not save enough for even a basic retirement. this concept appears too difficult for both liberals and the evil rich to understand. and FDR who discovered it is no longer around to charm folks into thinking they agree with it.]
I think I agree with you here. This is politics pure and simple. The Democrats will be able to run on soak the rich, and the Republicans will be able to run on “growth destroying taxes.”
Meanwhile the “evil rich” (not all of the rich) will continue to rob the poor as well as the rest of the rich with the blessing of both parties in Congress and the White House.
[note, the “robbing” is not “tax breaks.” it’s straight forward fraud and abuse of economic power.]
Of course it is politics. And of course the last six years have been politics also, but changes were made.
Marginal rates for the rich went up 15%. Marginal rates for the super rich went up over 60%.
That is not politics, that is governing.
You’re blaming people for running on issues they have addressed when in power. How is that a problem?
who said that calling it “politics” was blaming them? did you notice that you agreed with me “of course it’s politics.”?
but i don’t think that even if you see the “tax raises” you will see them stop robbing the poor.
Half of the tax increase on the richest Americans went directly to pay for health insurance for the poorest Americans.
call me a cynic.
the tax increase on the rich will be passed through to their customers and employees.
meanwhile the cost of health care will go up, and the poor will find they can’t afford the co-pays etc.
as their wages go down.
meanwhile, i just had a visit to the emergency room for a minor problem that could have become serious without a few stiches and some antibiotic.
cost was over two thousand dollars and rising. i was pressed to have an operation which would have cost tens of thousands and which was not needed (i didn’t have it and am doing fine).
looking hard at the bill i was pretty sure i saw some egregious over charging (1800 dollars for a “doctor” who saw me for five seconds) and double billing for the same service. i called Medicare to ask if they had looked at this. The answer was “no,” and they weren’t much interested in looking at it unless i were prepared to file a fraud claim… which i really can’t do based on anything i actually know.
but that’s medical care in America. and it’s not going to change.
Von Hollen makes some good points but ought to keep it simple.
Treat salaries over $1 million as taxable earnings for the corporation without the strings Von Hollen proposed.
Add some progressivity to the capital gains tax so that higher capital gains earners pay higher capital gains rate. Would be great if there were an amount of capital gains that was untaxed -say the first $10K per year so that ordinary savers would not get taxed.